Somalia between 1960-1991: A nation that can only survive through foreign aid money

This is a very important thread because many people falsely believe the myth, Somalia was self-sufficient during the times of relatively stability, pre civil war (1960-1991). I will post several reliable sources, mainly academical journals, to prove that the opposite case is true.

#Fact 1: The civilian governments between 1960-1969 received more aid money than any other African country per capita. The ruling party in this Era the Somali Youth League or in short SYL, based the major part of it's financial policy on aid money. Read the below sources.

1) "SOMALIA is one of the poorest countries of the world, with an estimated income per capita of about $50.1 Yet she is one of the largest recipients of foreign aid: during I964-9 she received an annual average of about $15 per head of her 3 million population.2 This rate of aid is more than three times the figure of $4.5 per capita, which represents the average annual aid to other developing countries during I964-7.3 The large inflow of foreign aid to Somalia reflects both a great variety of forms of economic assistance and an uncommon diversity of donors. Most significantly, about 85 per cent of her total development expendi- ture up to the end of 1969 has been externally financed. This is a rare case of dependence on foreign financing among the less developed countries, where typically foreign resources account for only about I0 per cent of total investment expenditure. Consequently, Somalia presents a unique opportunity for a case study of the effectiveness of foreign aid to a country at an early stage of development. To anticipate the overall conclusions of this article, her experience suggests that aid is far from being an unqualified bonus"

Effectiveness of Foreign Aid-The Case of Somalia
Author(s): Ozay Mehmet
Source: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (May, 1971), pp. 31-47
Published by: Cambridge University Press


2) "The most significant change in the first nine years of independence was in the growth of public employment. In order to pay for the enormous growth in recurrent expenditure to employ so many people, Somali leaders engaged in an inventive strategy of playing off the two superpowers against each other. Refusing either to be 'capitalist' or 'communist' but appearing to be interested in both, Somali leaders procured more international aid per capita than any other country in Africa. In the decade of the 1960s, Somalia received US$90 per capita in foreign economic assistance, about twice the average for sub-Saharan Africa. This helped to pay for increasing numbers of bureaucrats and parliamentarians, who lived ostentatious and opulent lives in Mogadishu, and for a five fold increase in the size of the Somali army. To be sure, much of the foreign aid did go into infrastructural investment and other worthy projects. In this period, the state constructed roads, factories to produce milk, textiles, tinned meat and fish. Also many schools, a national theatre, and a national airline. But most Somalis - and the aid officials who were supposedly overseeing these investments - felt frustrated. Factory production barely got off the ground and was beset with endless delays. Medicine donated by the World Health Organisation found its way into private pharmacies; foreign exchange for development projects was expended for vehicles that became private taxis owned by the families of parliamentarians; and the custom's duties were privately appropriated. An aura of corruption - what the Somalis call musuq maasuq - pervaded all of Somali economic life. This subverted the ability of the state to lead Somali out of the economic doldrums."

Somalia and the World Economy
Author(s): David D. Laitin and Said S. Samatar
Source: Review of African Political Economy, No. 30, Conflict in the Horn of Africa (Sep., 1984), pp. 58-72 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.




#Fact 2: The regime of Mohammed Siyad Barre did not make Somalia self-sufficient either, rather the dependency on aid money increased rapidly during the 21 years rule of the dictator. As follows, you will see my sources.

1) "Here it ought to be mentioned that although Somalia no longer relies on western capitalist aid as it had done so heavily in the I96os, the present aid, from the Soviet Union, is facing the same difficulties. The egalitarian and proud Somali workers seem reluctant to implement certain projects, as if to 'get back' at certain dogmatic and arrogant Russians. While the Somali Government becomes more and more in debt to the Soviet Union, results from the economic aid - in particular the meat factory and the fishing industry - are far below expectations."

The Political Economy of Military Rule in Somalia
Author(s): David D. Laitin
Source: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Sep., 1976), pp. 449-468
Published by: Cambridge University Press


2) "To meet its domestic demand for food, Somalia became increasingly dependent on food aid. This fact is clear from table 4, which shows that within a decade the inflow of food aid grew by more than 15-fold, or at the striking rate of 31 percent a year, thus outpacing the 8.2 per- cent annual growth of food consumption by 3.8 times. As a consequence, the share of food aid in consumption rose rapidly from virtually nil in the early 1970s to about one-third in the early 1980s.

1Food aid.PNG


The growing dependence on food aid has sometimes been justified on the grounds that development efforts in the early stages result in per capita income growth, which together with an initially high population growth rate and a relatively high income elasticity of demand for food in the low-income developing countries leads to a growth in food demand at a faster rate than can be met by increases in domestic production. This brings about an increased dependence on food imports in general and on food aid in particular when foreign-exchange scarcity severely constrains commercial imports.2' For the specific case of Somalia, how- ever, it is highly doubtful that this argument holds. The reason is that, although a high income elasticity of food demand in Somalia is quite plausible (and is in fact confirmed by Farzin's estimating it to be around 1.4 and statistically highly significant), and although Somalia's population grew at the high average rate of about 3.5 percent a year,22 its real per capita income not only did not grow, but in fact declined over this period at the average rate of -0.3 percent a year."

Food Aid: Positive or Negative Economic Effects in Somalia?
Author(s): Y. Hossein Farzin
Source: The Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jan., 1991), pp. 261-282
Published by: College of Business, Tennessee State University


3) "By the early 1980s, Somalia had accumulated over $600 million of debt -four times the revenues from exports. Put another way, in 1983, the country's service payments on existing debts were well over 25 percent of expected revenues from exports. Interview with Xussein Celaabay, Director General, State Planning Commission, Moqdishu, 12 December 1982. Moreover, the economy's dependence on foreign aid is put around 40 percent ($400 million) of the Gross Natinal Product. Virginia Luling, `Somalia," Africa Review, 1985, 9th ed. (Essex: World of Information, 1985), pp. 290-92"

Underdevelopment in Somalia: Dictatorship without Hegemony
Author(s): Ahmed I. Samatar
Source: Africa Today, Vol. 32, No. 3, Somalia: Crises of State and Society (3rd Qtr., 1985), pp. 23-40
Published by: Indiana University Press


4)

2 Foreign aid.PNG


Somalia and the World Economy
Author(s): David D. Laitin and Said S. Samatar
Source: Review of African Political Economy, No. 30, Conflict in the Horn of Africa (Sep., 1984), pp. 58-72 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

5) "The entire country has suffered severe setbacks caused by economic inertia, intense inflationary pressures induced by the war, and the cost of a large and unproductive bureaucracy. The disorder engendered by this process has led to the misappropriation of the nation's wealth by officials in ways that were previously unimaginable. It is usually in the upper echelons of the public service that the bulk of the sacking of the commons takes place, while most bureaucrats, whose salaries have been virtually swallowed by inflation, garner whatever they can by exploiting their offices. This is the social basis for corruption, bearing in mind that a mid-level functionary only earns about S.Shs.i,ooo a month, just enough to purchase, for example, 7 kilos of meat. In addition, the shift (in the mid-1970s) from eastern to western sources of aid, with its emphasis on private rather than public programmes, facilitates the vigour with which plundering is taking place. State agencies, ministries, and parastatals, because they are strategic recipients of foreign aid or 'rent', are zealously guarded by those who command state power,1 and there is enough evidence to suggest that important developmental agencies and departments have been hijacked by members of the ruling clique. Moreover, the vast amounts of foreign assistance which the military regime continues to receive2 - Table i shows that in Africa only Mauritania and Botswana are higher recipients of aid on a per capita basis - and the rentier nature of the leadership, deepens the wedge between the state and the rural producers, currently responsible for nearly go per cent of the country's foreign exchange."

The Material Roots of the Suspended African State: Arguments from Somalia
Author(s): Abdi Samatar and A. I. Samatar
Source: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 669-690
Published by: Cambridge University Press
 
Last edited:

Tukraq

VIP
SYL was good politically in my opinion but bad economically, barre to me was bad on both but did make key foreign affairs positions that helped us greatly especially militarily, right now focus should be real federalism, focusing only on Mogadishu was probably out downfall economically tbh, we need to work on developing and look for growth from each and every tuulo
 
SYL was good politically in my opinion but bad economically, barre to me was bad on both but did make key foreign affairs positions that helped us greatly especially militarily, right now focus should be real federalism, focusing only on Mogadishu was probably out downfall economically tbh, we need to work on developing and look for growth from each and every tuulo

The topic of my thread is the high dependency of Somalia on aid money in the period 1960-1991. Not why federalism is better than centralism.
 

Tukraq

VIP
The topic of my thread is the high dependency of Somalia on aid money in the period 1960-1991. Not why federalism is better than centralism.
well that was the cause? otherwise SYL had all it needed for high economic growth due to its democratic type government and market system, sometimes you need to look at why that is and not just state something
 

Tukraq

VIP
also aid isn't a bad thing anyways, I mean look at Israel, Europe would be a shithole without the Marshall plan, economic investment from world powers is a good thing interestingly enough somalia was getting the most funding as you stated in Africa, being the first democracy in Africa is a smart sell to achieve that(kind of like Israel as she gets western funding by claiming first democracy in the Middle East)
 
that is 31 years

now lets take a look at somaliland

1991 to 2019 that is 28 years, gdp less then 500 dollars per year, no free healthcare or education. No industry no government projects. No infrastructure infact still relying on the infrastructure done by the kacaan government. most areas created after 1991 in hargeysa have no running water.

the unemployment rate is 80% and before you talk about not being recognised, tiawan is not recognised and is a first world country.
 
Somalia has also received close to $60 billion since 1991.

Our ancestors picked the driest place in the whole world to live so the aid percentage is to be expected.

:bell::bell:
 

Tukraq

VIP
that is 31 years

now lets take a look at somaliland

1991 to 2019 that is 28 years, gdp less then 500 dollars per year, no free healthcare or education. No industry no government projects. No infrastructure infact still relying on the infrastructure done by the kacaan government. most areas created after 1991 in hargeysa have no running water.

the unemployment rate is 80% and before you talk about not being recognised, tiawan is not recognised and is a first world country.
I mean its the failed worse version of kacaan lol obviously they don't have comparable results and are worse off
 
I mean its the failed worse version of kacaan lol obviously they don't have comparable results and are worse off

if somaliland today was like taiwan or even a country like sri lanka i would have said he has a point, but the average person has it way worse. atleast back then education was free and healthcare was free.
 
Somalia has also received close to $60 billion since 1991.

Our ancestors picked the driest place in the whole world to live so the aid percentage is to be expected.

:bell::bell:

With two major ports (Berbera and Mogadishu), a planting society in the southern regions, a very small population and a strategic position which is interesting for evey super power, we can't blame the place saaxib, but the people.
 

Teflon

Inactive
VIP
if somaliland today was like taiwan or even a country like sri lanka i would have said he has a point, but the average person has it way worse. atleast back then education was free and healthcare was free.

waryaa stop with the hate for SL. this thread has nothing to do with SL. its about how the kacaan era was the most fucked up era in somali history
 
Very information thread. I always told that Somalia 1960-1991 was self sufficient and prosperous, I guess that was a big lie :Sutehja:
 
you don't want your propaganda to be challenged?

you can't say it is the worse era when today in every metric you are worse off. when you are looking at history also look at the present and do a comparison then make judgement. but you don't want people to look at the present.
 
you don't want your propaganda to be challenged?

you can't say it is the worse era when today in every metric you are worse off. when you are looking at history also look at the present and do a comparison then make judgement. but you don't want people to look at the present.

I will make a separate thread soon comparing Somaliland 1991-2019 vs Somaliland united with Somalia 1960-1991. It will be difficult.

Also Somaliland has free education for elementary and intermediate and Secondary school since 2011. People only pay for items and uniforms. For now respect or challenge @Abdurahman_somali thread with facts 1960-1991 and Stay bosted for separate thread in week or so
 
Last edited:
you don't want your propaganda to be challenged?

you can't say it is the worse era when today in every metric you are worse off. when you are looking at history also look at the present and do a comparison then make judgement. but you don't want people to look at the present.

My thesis of the thread is that Somalia was not self sufficient during the time from 1960-1991. I backed up my claims with academical journals of well known scholars. Furthermore all my sources are perfectly citated so that every reader her can look them up.

You didn't challenge anything. You mentioned somehow another period 1991-2019 and claim that the present is worse. You claimed random things about SL and did not come with a singe source, even if you would, proving that the present is worse does not debunk my initial claims at all.

You have one of two options:

a. Agree with me that Somalia was not self sufficient between 1960-1991 after I haved provided several sources.

b. Disagree with me and come with academical sources with correct citation.

Just calling what I have backed up propaganda and mentioning SL doesn't debunk anything.
 

Timo Jareer and proud

2nd Emir of the Akh Right Movement
you don't want your propaganda to be challenged?

you can't say it is the worse era when today in every metric you are worse off. when you are looking at history also look at the present and do a comparison then make judgement. but you don't want people to look at the present.
Where in this thread did @Abdurahman_somali mention Somaliland once? What propaganda? Somaliland was Somalia at this point we were all DIRT POOR

Somaliland
is obviously poor but is way better off then the kacan era. Do you not realize why we rebelled against the Communist government? All money coming in to Somalia was invested in Mogadishu only.
 

Teflon

Inactive
VIP
Where in this thread did @Abdurahman_somali mention Somaliland once? What propaganda? Somaliland was Somalia at this point we were all DIRT POOR

Somaliland
is obviously poor but is way better off then the kacan era. Do you not realize why we rebelled against the Communist government? All money coming in to Somalia was invested in Mogadishu.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
 
Top